Zevachim 65: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On yesterday’s daf we learned that birds brought as sacrifices were not slaughtered in the ordinary manner, but were killed by means of melika – a unique method where the kohen would hold the bird in his hand and kill it with his thumbnail.

The Gemara on our daf quotes a baraita that derives these requirements from the passage in Sefer Vayikra (1:15) where the Torah emphasizes that this unique slaughtering must be done by a kohen and cannot be done with a knife as is the case with ordinary slaughtering.

We explore this unique form of sacrifice and compare it with Schechita and other ancient forms of barehanded ritual sacrifice.

Zevachim 64: קִיַּימְתָּ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara describes the process of Melikah, the slaughtering of the bird-offering by hand. The Beraisa concludes that this is the most difficult Avodah to perform in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara asks that there are other Avodos which are more difficult, such as the Avodos of Kemitzah and Chafinah (see Yoma 47b and 49b).

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa does not mean that Melikah is the most difficult Avodah, but rather that it is among the most difficult Avodos in the Beis ha'Mikdash (see RASHI, DH Avodah Kashah).

Midrash Rabba Vayikra Rabba 3:5 focused on bird sacrifices, where both the meal offering and the bird offering are sacrifices typically given by the poor who could not afford the more expensive animal sacrifices.

Zevachim 63: אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Torah, the kohanim cannot climb up to the altar using steps, since that would allow the possibility of “uncovered nakedness,” given the way the uniforms are worn by the kohanim (see Shemot 20:22). To avoid this problem, the kohanim climbed to the altar by means of a kevesh – a ramp that led to the top of the mizbe’aḥ.

The Gemara on our daf offers some details regarding the kevesh. Rami bar Ḥama taught that all kivshei kevashim were three amot in length for every amah in height, while the main kevesh was a little more than three-and-a-half amot for every amah in height.

We explore the new Mishnah with The Bird Sacrifices: Ritual, Symbolism, and Difference in Halakhic Logic.

Zevachim 62: ״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabba bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "When the Jews came back from Babylon to Israel, three prophets (Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) came with them. One testified about the size of the Altar, another - about the position of the Altar, and the third one testified that they may offer sacrifices on the Altar, even though the Temple was not built yet.”

Ultimately, Rabba bar bar Ḥana quotes Rabbi Yoḥanan as teaching that there were three prophets who returned with the exiles and testified about three things related to the Temple:

One described the form, shape and size of the altar

One testified about its place in the Temple

One brought the ruling that allowed the sacrificial service to begin on the altar even before the Temple was completed.

According to Rashi, the prophets mentioned here are Ḥaggai, Zekharya and Malakhi whose Second Temple period prophecies are recorded in the book of Trei Asar.

It was taught in a baraita cited above that the measurement of the altar’s length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The Master, i.e., Abaye, who is a great man, knows what I mean to say. Rav Yosef read, i.e., applied, the following verse to those who mocked him:

“The children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4). Although Keturah’s children were children of Abraham, they were not of the same caliber as Isaac. Similarly, Rav Yosef was saying that his other students were not of the caliber of Abaye.

We explore Keturah as Mirror: The Making of a Mythical Figure Through Interpretive Projection reflected in painters from Rembrandt to William Blake.

Zevachim 61: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל שִׁילֹה – שֶׁל אֲבָנִים הָיָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

While traveling through the desert, the Children of Israel were commanded to build a collapsible Tabernacle complete with implements for sacrifice. Upon entering the Land of Israel they were commanded to build a Temple – a permanent structure where sacrifices would be brought – although this mitzva was not fulfilled until the time of King Solomon, hundreds of years after the land was settled. During the interim, the altar was set up on a semi-permanent basis in places like Shiloh, Nov and Giv’on.

According to Sefer Yehoshua (18:1), the first established resting place for the Tabernacle was Shiloh, where it stood until the war with the Pelishtim during the time of Eli the High Priest, as described in Sefer Shmuel (I, Chapter 4).

We explore the Mishkan at Shiloh from literary and archeological viewpoints.

Zevachim 60: אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Ma’aser sheni – “the second tithe” – is separated after the first tithes have been set aside for the kohen and the levi. This produce is taken by the owner and eaten in Jerusalem. In the event that there is too much for him to bring, he can redeem the fruit and purchase food in Jerusalem that he will eat there.

Does the requirement to set aside ma’aser sheni remain even when the Temple is no longer standing?

While the Gemara first attempts to answer this question by drawing a comparison to the laws of bekhor – a first born animal that is brought to the Temple – ultimately the Gemara suggests that it is dependent on the question whether kedusha rishona kidshah le-sha’atah ve-kidshah le-atid la-vo – does the holiness of the Temple remain in place even after its destruction. If there is no longer any holiness, then what would the purpose be to set aside ma’aser sheni?

We explore the notion of sacrifices in the future as well as the significance of korbanot after the destruction.

Zevachim 59: פְּלוֹנִי נַנָּס הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav says that if the altar was cracked, all sacrifices slaughtered are invalid. Rav says that there was a verse to prove this, but we forgot it. When Rav Kahana went up to Eretz Yisroel, he found Rabbi Shimon b’Rebbi, who quoted Rabbi Yishmael beRabbi Yossi who said that this is learned from the verse which states that you should slaughter on it (i.e., the altar) es olosecha v'es shlamecha – your ola and shlamim sacrifices.

The verse cannot be literal, since the sacrifices are not slaughtered on the altar.

We explore the broken altar as a typology as well as the Rambam's view of sacrifices.

Zevachim 58: שְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already learned that kodashei kodashim – the holiest of sacrifices – must be slaughtered and prepared in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, while kodashim kalim – sacrifices that are on a lower level of holiness – can be slaughtered and prepared anywhere in the Temple courtyard.

In the Mishna on our daf, Rabbi Yosei teaches that if kodashei kodashim were slaughtered on the altar itself, that would be permissible, while Rabbi Yosei b’Rabbi Yehuda rules that only the northern half of the altar would be acceptable; the southern part is not considered “north” and only kodashim kalim could be slaughtered there.

We explore the exposition of Exodus 21:23 by the Netziv as well as the inner psychological dimensions of the altar from a chassidic perspective.

Zevachim 57: מַה לְהַלָּן עַד חֲצוֹת, אַף כָּאן עַד חֲצוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: The pesach offering is only eaten at night etc. The Gemora asks: Who is the author of this Mishna? Rav Yosef answers: This must be Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah.

This is as the braisa states: Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah says that the verse states, on this night (regarding pesach) and I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night (regarding makkas bechoros). Just as makkas bechoros was until (i.e. at, and not after) midnight, so too the pesach offering can only be eaten at midnight.

We explore the hermeneutics of “that night” as well as chassidic and Jungian archetypes.

Zevachim 56: נָדוּן דָּבָר מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora notes: Our Tanna (who maintains that the blood of the pesach and ma’aser offerings were thrown on the altar – like the bechor, and not poured) in accordance with Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, for Rabbi Yosi HaGelili said: It does not say, “its blood,” but rather, “their blood” is said; and “its fat” is not said, but rather, “their fat” is said.

This teaches us that bechor, ma’aser and the pesach offering require blood application and its sacrificial parts are burned on the Altar.

In rabbinic memory, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili symbolizes the union of wisdom and humility. The sages rose before him and called him "master of Torah," yet he remained personally modest. His interpretations were brilliant yet accessible, sophisticated yet practical.

Zevachim 55: וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? זֶה מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora cites a braisa (which teaches us that kodashim kalim may be eaten throughout Yerushalayim): And the breast of the waving and the thigh of separation you shall eat in a place that is tahor. Rabbi Nechemiah said: Did they (Aaron and his sons) then eat the earlier sacrifices (the goats and the minchah offering offered on that day – the eighth day of the inaugural ceremonies of the Mishkan) in tumah? Rather, tahor implies that it is partially tamei; this means that it is tahor from the tumah of a metzora, but tamei with the tumah of a zav, and which place is that? It is the camp of the Israelites. [If they can eat the shelamim in the Israelite camp in the desert, then it can be eaten in Yerushalayim in the Temple era.]

But, the Gemora asks, perhaps it means that it is tahor from the tumah of a zav, yet tamei with the tumah of the dead, and which place is that? It is the camp of the Levites.

Abaye answers: It is written: And you shall eat it (the minchah offering) in a holy place; it must be eaten in a holy place, but another (like it – the todah breads) does not need to be eaten in a holy place. The todah breads (and all other kodashim kalim) are removed from the camp of the Shechinah into the camp of the Levites. Then it is written: in a tahor place; this removes it into the camp of the Israelites.

Rava answers: It must be eaten in a holy place, but another (like it – the todah breads) does not need to be eaten in a holy place; this removes it altogether (from all three camps); then the Torah wrote: You shall eat it in a tahor place; this brought it back into the camp of the Israelites. The Gemora asks: Perhaps it should be brought back into the camp of the Levites!?

We explore the dispute between the two great masters at a deeper level of hermeneutics.

Zevachim 54: סַנְהֶדְרִין בְּחֶלְקוֹ דִּיהוּדָה וּשְׁכִינָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ דְּבִנְיָמִין

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the straightforward reading of Sefer Shmuel (II: Chapter 24), King David was directed to that place by Gad, the prophet, who instructed him to build an altar to God that would end the plague from which the people were suffering. The Gemara on our daf offers a much more detailed description of the long-term planning that went into arriving at this decision.

Rava quotes a passage from Shmuel Aleph (19:18-19) where we find Shmuel the prophet sitting with David in Nayot in Ramah. This pasuk is difficult since Nayot and Ramah are two different places, so Rava interprets this homiletically as meaning that they sat together in Ramah and discussed noyo shel olam – the beauty of the world – i.e., the Temple. It is clear that the Temple was supposed to be among the highest places in Israel, since the commandment to visit the Temple on the pilgrimage holidays states ve-kamta ve-alita – that people must “go up” to the place chosen by God (Devarim 17:8).

We explore the role of Doeg and the way our daf makes use of pesukim to describe the facts of history.

Zevachim 53: רְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצְאָה מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יְהוּדָה וְנִכְנֶסֶת בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִי

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Somewhat surprisingly, the yesod ha-mizbe’aḥ – the foundation of the altar – is found only on the Northern and Western sides. The Eastern and Southern sides had no yesod.

Rabbi Elazar explains that this is because that area of the altar did not fall in the area belonging to the tribe of Binyamin, rather it was in the area belonging to the tribe of Yehuda. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak explains that this is because one amah of the altar cut into the area that belonged to the tribe of Yehuda.

The Gemara in -Massekhet Yoma- (12a) teaches that there is a disagreement between the Tanna Kamma who believes that Jerusalem was a separate entity – that it was not divided between the shevatim and Rabbi Yehuda who argues that Jerusalem was divided. According to this opinion the border between Yehuda and Binyamin ran through -the Temple- itself, with the -Temple Mount- offices on Yehuda’s side and the sanctuary and Holy of Holies on Binyamin’s.

We explore the literary historical and tensions between Judah and Benjamin.

Zevachim 52: חוּט שֶׁל סִיקְרָא חוֹגְרוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna that begins on our daf discusses the placement of both communal and individual sin-offerings. They are slaughtered on the northern side of the Temple courtyard, where the blood of the sacrifice is collected. That blood is taken by the kohen to the altar where it is placed on each of the four corners of the mizbe’aḥ. The Mishna specifies that the kohen is to walk up the ramp and walk along the sovev – the edge surrounding the altar – beginning with the southeastern corner, and continuing to the northeastern corner, the northwestern corner and finally the southwestern corner, placing the blood on each one of the corners in succession.

We explore the meaning and myth of the chut hasikra.

Zevachim 51: אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (47a), the remnants of the blood of a korban ḥatat – a sin-offering – that was brought in the inner sanctum of the Temple, was poured out on the foundation of the altar that stood outside of the Temple, in the Temple courtyard.

Of the various sin-offerings, those that were brought by the High Priest (see Vayikra 4:3-12) and those that were brought by the Sanhedrin on behalf of the entire community (see Vayikra 4:13-21), as well as those brought on Yom Kippur (see Vayikra 16:3, 15) were brought on the inner altar; the others were brought on the altar that was outside in the Temple courtyard (see, for example, the sin-offering of the king, Vayikra 4:22-26 or an individual sinner, Vayikra 4:27-35). In the case of the korbanot that were brought on the inner altar, sprinkling the blood – which, as we have learned, was an essential part of the sacrificial service – took place within the confines of the Temple. Nevertheless, what was left over after the blood was sprinkled was poured out on the altar that stood outside of the Temple, in the courtyard.

We examine a fundamental tension between biblical and rabbinic approaches to sacrificial efficacy. The biblical text of Leviticus 4 presents sacrifice as an integrated ritual whole that 'makes atonement,' without atomizing the process into efficacious and non-efficacious components. The Talmudic tradition, by contrast, engages in precise analytical atomization, identifying specific moments and actions that 'effect atonement' (mekaper) while designating others as ritually necessary but soteriologically inert.

Zevachim 50: דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf examines whether rules are true in all cases where the source of the original law is not a clear biblical passage but is learned by means of some exegetical derivation. For example, can something learned from a hekesh be used to teach based on:

• a gezeira shava?

• a kal vaḥomer?

• a binyan av?

All of these methods of analysis are among the midot she-haTorah nidreshet bahem – the hermeneutical principles established by the Sages and used to derive laws from the Torah. 

Gezeira shava – is a verbal analogy. If the same word or phrase appears in two places in the Torah, we may infer on the basis of “verbal analogy” that the same law must apply in the other case, as well.

We explore the hermeneutic rules of gezeira shava.

Zevachim 49: דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned on yesterday’s daf, sacrifices that were kodashei kodashim – the holiest of holies – were brought in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The source for this law appears in the Torah with reference to the korban olah – the burnt-offering – and the other sacrifices were derived from the olah.

The Gemara on our daf asks why the korban asham – the guilt-offering – needs to be compared to both the korban olah and the korban ḥatat – the sin-offering (see Vayikra 14:13 where the Torah requires that the asham be slaughtered in the same place as the ḥatat and the olah).

"Ravina answered: If that had been so, I would still say that a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches its halakha via a juxtaposition. And if you would say that if that were to be so, let the verse juxtapose the guilt offering of a leper only to a sin offering,one could answer that it is preferable for the Torah that it juxtaposes the guilt offering to the primary offering about which it states that it must be slaughtered in the north, i.e., the burnt offering, and not juxtapose it to the secondary offering, the sin offering.

For this reason, i.e., to prevent the incorrect assumption that a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches its halakha via a juxtaposition, the verse juxtaposed it to a sin offering and also juxtaposed it to a burnt offering, to say that a matter derived via a juxtaposition does not then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition.”

We explore the talmudic rules of exegesis including the hekesh, described above.

Zevachim 48: בֵּין לְמִצְוָה בֵּין לְעַכֵּב

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The animal which is brought as a chattas must be standing in the north of the courtyard when it is slaughtered.

Nevertheless, the person himself who is performing the slaughter does not have to be standing in the north. He can be standing nearby and reach over into the north where the animal is standing. The Gemara searches to find the source from where we learn this halacha. At one point, the Gemara attributes this halacha to the verse (Vayikra 4:24) which is written regarding the goat of the King.

We explore the galactic and mythical implications of the sacred directions from where to stand facing by a Korean to where to direction one’s bed.

Zevachim 47: איזהו מקומן של זבחים

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Perek Eizehu Mekoman, the fifth perek of Massekhet Zevaḥim, begins on our daf.This perek offers an overview of all of the different sacrifices that were brought in the Temple, with the exception of korbanot ha-of – sacrifices brought from fowl – which are discussed in the following chapters, and menaḥot – meal offerings – that have their own tractates dedicated to those laws.

The entire chapter of Perek Eizehu Mekoman has been inserted into the siddur as an introduction to the daily morning prayer service. The Beit Yosef quotes the Re’ah in offering a number of reasons for this. First of all, it contains a review of virtually all of the sacrifices, and our prayers serve as replacements for the korbanot that can no longer be brought. Furthermore he points to the fact that we do not find any differences of opinion in the entire chapter, which can be understood as indicating that this is a chapter of oral tradition that has come down to us in the same language that it was received by Moshe on Mount Sinai.

We explore the more mystical dimensions of this liturgical insertion.

Zevachim 46: לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְשֵׁם נִיחוֹחַ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, a standard sacrifice needs to be brought with six things in mind:

1) Zevaḥ – The intent must be for the specific sacrifice that is being brought

2) Zovei’aḥ – The intent must be for the owner of the sacrifice

3) Ha-Shem – The sacrifice must be brought with God in mind

4) Ishim – The intent must be to sacrifice the animal on the altar

5) Rei’aḥ – It must be brought in a manner that will raise the scent of the sacrifice

6) Niḥo’aḥ – The intention must be to fulfill God’s will.

In addition, a sin-offering or a guilt-offering must be brought with the specific transgression in mind.

We explore The Psychology of Intention and Truth: Consciousness, Meaning-Making, and the Architecture of Authentic Action.